2.66 Quad-Core vs. 3.2 Dual-Core...which one would be better?

[deltaf508]

I'm up for getting a new desktop here a work and have these two options available to me. Performance-wise what's your opinion on what would be the better performer. More processing power and only Dual-Core or Less processing power and Quad-Core.

Thanks in advance for the opinions.

[thephilosophizer]

Well, it depends on the specifics. For one, what are the brand and models of the processors?
I can tell you I have a 2.66 quad that runs at 4.0ghz without any trouble.
The other thing is that different programs are programmed differently, and some can take better advantage of multiple processors than others can. But it does also seem to be the case that more and more frequently programs are being written to utilize multiple threads.
Which leaves the last question of what is the computer going to be most used for?

[deltaf508]

Won't be overclocking since it's not my personal machine. This is strictly a business machine from Dell (no choice here). We're talking Email, word/excel, Internet, (antivirus scans), DVD/CD burning, Lots of file transferring, etc. However, I do throw in a little bit of DVD decoding, and image manipulation here and there (nothing big though). No gaming etc.

I'm leaning toward the dual core at the moment partially based on this article Quad core vs. dual core debate

I should also mention that the Quad core will cost us $105 more and I'll sacrifice a bit in Mhz.

hmmmm, decisions. Have to decide by today and order.

thanks.

[Aaron_8015]

You cant compare clock speeds between different CPU architectures.... We need to know the models of each of those CPU's to be able to tell you which one is better/suit your needs.

[deltaf508]

ok, here are my options:

Intel® Core™ 2 Quad Q8400 with VT (2.66GHz, 4M, 1333MHz FSB) adds $105 to the price.

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E7600 with VT (3.06GHz, 3M, 1066MHz FSB)

Just realized the quad has a faster FSB and more Cache and the Dual core is not the 3.2 like I thought. hmmm....

Thanks for your opinions.

[nickslick74]

Honestly, unless you are doing hardcore gaming or video editing, you probably won't notice much (if any) difference.

[thephilosophizer]

Yeah, unless your use is going to be really intensive, or it's on someone else's dime, you probably won't notice much.
But, the quad would certainly be the faster and more capable chip.

[deltaf508]

Alright. Thanks for the input. Kind of in line with what I was thinking being as I'm not going to be using it for some serious number crunching. Just trying to get the most bang for the buck. I'll do some more thinking on it and make a decision.

Thanks again everyone.

[mrniceguy]

You gotta look at it in straightforward terms imo, if you're going to be running photoshop, decoding video, active scanning with your antivirus, with word open in the back and maybe a web browser open all at the same time then the multiple cores are going to help. Most likely, as has been said, you're better off with 2 faster processors. If you're workin with big files you might put that $100 towards more ram. On that subject look at what ram they're sending with the comp, I've found dell likes to sell low speed cheap ram with their non gaming oriented computers. When I got my father's autocad workstation I started with a dell but replaced all the ram and got him a quadro (we had a wordprocessing comp I tossed the ram in).

Also I'm not sure if they list cache as per core or if it's shared, that'd make a big difference in what that listed cache size actually means. aka the dual core could have 1.5 meg per core and the quad 1 meg per core.